t2000_balance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It explains return values (stables, SUI, other tokens with amount-only restriction) but does not mention read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or real-time vs cached data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then detail. Efficient but could combine some phrases without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the output, explains limitations, and references audric.ai for savings. However, missing any mention of update frequency or caching.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by explaining the output structure and special cases (e.g., amount-only for tokens without oracle), which compensates for absent params.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves the agent's full wallet balance, enumerating components (spendable stables, SUI gas, other tokens), explains totalUsd limitation, and differentiates from savings/lending by referencing audric.ai.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While implicitly for balance queries and differentiated from savings, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like t2000_history or t2000_pay, and no when-not-to-use scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.